Search results

Since the importance of implementing portfolio management is growing world‐wide, this paper seeks to report on case‐based research on portfolio management in a company that implemented it along with a new product development process.

This paper uses a case study approach conducted in a manufacturing company in Brazil. Data were gathered through participation in portfolio meetings, non‐structured interviews, and document analysis; results were aggregated a posteriori to construct the case.

The paper finds that portfolio management was implemented using a framework which employed a scoring system and qualitative information. The empirical evidence lends support to the existence of portfolio management practices as identified in the literature. In addition, the use of the proposed framework assisted the company in putting in place a methodology to select the right projects and to allocate both capital and personnel resources.

The paper is limited to a single case study. Replications among other samples are needed to validate current findings.

This paper is one of the few published studies that report on and discuss the implementation of portfolio management in a country in South America.

To identify QFD best practices and understand factors that contribute to successful QFD application.

A field research study is presented that summarises the use of QFD in a number of companies operating in Brazil. The paper reports multiple case studies conducted in organizations that have already achieved maturity in QFD implementation.

The study identified areas of QFD best practice such as the development of matrices and voice of customers, interaction with other organizational practices (e.g. TQC system and other methods and techniques), and less traditional QFD applications (concept definition, strategic planning, and developing a global product). The study also identifies QFD implementation success factors related to organizational characteristics (e.g. management support for QFD and cross‐functional involvement in QFD project), data sources (e.g. existing data sources and QFD‐driven data sources), and QFD tools and techniques such as use of advanced phases of quality deployment (e.g. development of different matrices, comprehensive QFD, integration of analytical techniques and QFD).

A useful source to be used by organizations that have been implementing QFD for product development or for those that plan to employ the method.

The paper offers practical and applied information on QFD implementation while identifying areas of best practice within a variety of situations. It will be useful for both academics and practitioners.

This paper is based on a benchmarking exercise involving some 164 QFD practitioners within Ford Motor Company and 27 selected external QFD companies. The predominant response “cell” was from Vehicle Centre 1, Power‐Train Systems Engineering, although there was both a US and non‐power‐train response content. The benchmarking focused on four parts: (1) criteria of success; (2) learning experience; (3) teamwork; and (4) future of QFD.

Quality function deployment (QFD) is a bridge between the customer and the product (process/service) development community. The QFD technique translates customer requirements obtained from market research into product measurables using matrix diagrams and product development teamwork. Ideally this process continues throughout the product development cycle, from design to production, using a series of QFD phases, prioritising and trading off the key measurables at each step. The ideal result should be both perceived and actual improvements to quality, functional performance and reduced cost on key attributes to prompt higher customer satisfaction. Use of QFD is therefore seen as both a strategic and a tactical tool within a competitive market. The problem facing many QFD practitioners, including Ford Motor Company, is that the cost, complexity and commitment required to deliver effective QFD‐driven targets in a timely manner either exceed available resources or represent a cultural anathema.

Following a discussion of the major findings from the Ford survey on usage pattern, the results were then benchmarked with a 1991 QFD usage survey conducted by MIT with 100 US companies.

The concept of QFD was developed in the mid‐1960s in Japan, with many Japanese companies now automatically incorporating QFD as an integral part of company‐wide quality practice. In contrast, many Western companies, having used QFD only since the mid‐1980s, either have already abandoned QFD in frustration or are in the process of radically rethinking its practice within their own changing quality improvement environments.

Senior and middle management support, including the release of resources, remains a critical component of successful QFD implementation. There is also a need to integrate a more flexible and timely QFD process within the requirements of the established product development process. All this depends on well‐trained, cross‐functional and multi‐disciplined teams with unified goals and focus.

The purpose of this paper is to outline a structured Multi‐Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methodology to help organisations efficiently allocate limited resources (investments in this case) to different R&D projects within attainable project portfolio strategy packages and select the efficient portfolios that align R&D investments to the corporate long‐term objectives.

In this paper a case study is used to present a proposed multi‐criteria methodology approach for project resource allocation. The method provides the decision maker with an ability to easily assess the impact of trading off R&D project portfolios tangible benefits (short‐term profits) and intangible benefits (reliability and risk) against constrained budget resources (investment costs), without the requirement for sophisticated and time‐consuming mathematical formulations.

Superior findings are achieved when decisions are assisted by computer‐based MCDM methodology.

The paper shows that the concept embodied in this multi‐criteria approach is applied in a case study to identify and select the efficient R&D project portfolios of a multi‐national manufacturing company.

The novelty of this paper lies in applying a multi‐criteria methodology that offers an integrated framework that allows efficient modelling of resource allocation of project portfolios. The ultimate benefit of this work can be seen in its dual effect of specifying efficient R&D projects within different attainable portfolio packages and in defining appropriate R&D investment strategies based on trading off benefits against organisationally constrained budget resources.

The purpose of this paper is to show that existing project portfolio management methods have failed to take firms' long‐term strategies into account. To overcome this limitation, it is proposed to suggest technology road‐maps (TRMs) as a tool to assist with project selection and planning.

Based on bibliographic and qualitative analysis, the paper develops a systematic process of building TRMs for project portfolio management. The proposed process was applied to the project selection and planning process of a Korean government R&D program.

The paper finds that the suggested process can support strategic planning by assuring that an organization is implementing the right projects at the right time. During this process, the selection of experts, the flexibility of the process, the periodical updating of the TRM, and TRM standardization are regarded as critical issues for high‐quality technology road‐mapping.

The approach in the paper does not deal with the cost and profitability aspects of a project as part of its evaluation, nor does it consider complex relations between technologies in different projects.

The findings in the paper are expected to be helpful in establishing R&D strategy and setting priorities among projects, and in fostering coordination in project implementation.

This paper is one of the earliest attempts to systemize TRM methods specifically for project portfolio management, and is expected to make it easier for companies to adopt and apply TRMs effectively.

This paper aims to review the latest management developments across the globe and pinpoint practical implications from cutting-edge research and case studies.

This briefing is prepared by an independent writer who adds their own impartial comments and places the articles in context.

Firms can optimize innovation outcomes by creating portfolios containing both exploitation and exploration projects. Development of ambidexterity capabilities helps attainment of such aims as companies will be more able to manage the inherent paradoxes of an integrated portfolio and the need to balance formality and flexibility in the approach.

The briefing saves busy executives, strategists and researchers hours of reading time by selecting only the very best, most pertinent information and presenting it in a condensed and easy-to-digest format.

This study examines scholarly communications in the International Journal of Managing Projects in Business (IJMPB) and identifies the journal's leading trends from 2008 to 2019.

This study analyzed a sample of 522 articles published in the IJMPB since its inception in 2008 until 2019. A set of bibliometric measures was used in the study to identify publication trends, citation structures, leading authors, institutions and countries. Additionally, analysis of research methodologies, industrial sectors and research themes of the articles was carried out through a rigorous content analysis. To examine the changes in journal expansion over time, the duration of publications (from 2008 to 2019) was divided into three subperiods.

The study findings show that 793 authors from 370 institutions and 58 countries contributed to the journal during this period. In terms of contributions, Australia and the Scandinavian countries are at the top, while Asian and African countries occupy a lower position. Moreover, among authors, Derek H.T. Walker was found to be the most prolific, with the highest weighting score and number of articles. Similarly, RMIT University of Australia emerged as the most productive institution. The articles were predominantly case studies followed by mixed methods (i.e. both surveys and interviews are used for data collection). Most of the articles in the sample were related to project management in general. However, several articles reported on construction, information technology (IT) and manufacturing projects.

This study is useful for the researcher community to understand the journal's scientific productivity. Further, it will also help identify dominant topics in the field of project management.

This is the first comprehensive review article presenting a general overview of the journal's leading trends and researchers since its inception in 2008.